13.1 In October 2008, the Commission produced a Green Paper[52]
on agricultural product quality. This pointed out that, because
of globalisation, products from countries with low production
costs were putting greater pressure on EU farmers, and it suggested
that "quality" was the best way to tackle these new
challenges, this being an area in which the EU had an advantage,
given its very high standards of food safety and hygiene. It also
noted the diverse requirements of the market, covering not only
health and nutritional value, but also so-called "societal
demands",[53] and
believed that EU farmers should see this as something to be turned
to their advantage.

13.2 In seeking views on how the policy and regulatory
framework could best promote agricultural product quality, the
Green Paper looked at a number of areas. These included:

EU farming requirements

13.3 The Commission noted that all food produced
within the EU has to adhere to hygiene and safety standards, relating
to the use of pesticides and fertilisers, the prevention of animal
and plant diseases, animal welfare, and the protection of the
environment. However, it also pointed out that many of these requirements
do not necessarily apply to imported foodstuffs, and that, if
this was better understood by consumers, it could become a potential
marketing advantage.

Marketing standards

13.4 The Commission commented that these lay down
definitions, minimum standards and labelling requirements for
a significant number of agricultural products and some processed
foods, and should enable farmers to deliver the quality expected
by consumers. However, it added that some foods  notably
arable crops  are not subject to Community-level marketing
standards (though general consumer protection and labelling rules
apply), and that some standards have proved controversial.

These describe an agricultural product or foodstuff
which owes its characteristic to the area from which it originates,
and include both "Protected Designations of Origin (PDO)"
and "Protected Geographical Indications (PGI)",[54]
with the latter currently applying to three areas (agricultural
products, spirit drinks and wine).

 Traditional specialities guaranteed

These are the names of agricultural products or foodstuffs
produced using traditional raw materials or methods of production,
or which have traditional composition. However, since they were
introduced in 1992, only 20 names have been registered, with another
30 awaiting registration, and most applicants for registration
do so without reserving the product name. Also, few of the products
concerned are significant in economic terms.

 Organic food

There had been a steady growth of demand for organic
foods, and controls by public authorities or certification bodies
were important to maintain confidence and justify premium prices.
Although the EU had since 1991 applied a standard laying down
rules, the market had tended to be fragmented along national lines.

 Other schemes

In addition to these quality schemes, there were
a number of further areas, including products of high-nature value
or from mountain areas, those involving welfare standards, and
the possible extension of the Ecolabel scheme. The CAP "Health
Check" had highlighted climate change, biodiversity conservation
and water use as being among the highest priorities, and the Commission
said that it would evaluate possible new schemes if further legislation
was thought necessary.

Certification schemes

13.6 The Commission observed that there had been
a substantial growth in private and national food quality certification
schemes, but that this had given rise to concerns about their
transparency and credibility. It therefore sought views on how
effective these schemes had been, and the extent to which current
EU oversight had been sufficient.

13.7 This Green Paper was followed in May 2009 by
a Commission Communication which summarised the responses it had
received, and which suggested that the EU strategic approach in
this area should involve:

reducing complexity to make it easier for farmers,
producers and consumers to use and understand the various schemes
and labelling terms.

The current proposals

13.8 In these two documents, the Commission summarises
the further responses to its 2009 Communication, and proposes
draft regulations relating (a) to agricultural product schemes
and (b) to marketing standards.

13.9 It says that there was a general welcome for
the principal thrust of the Communication, the main views expressed
being:

opposition to a merging of
the PDO and PGI instruments, although (with the exception of the
wine and spirits sectors) most respondents favoured merging the
three PGI schemes: in addition, there was general support for
simplifying, clarifying and streamlining the systems, and for
enhancing their international recognition;

almost unanimous support for continuation of
the traditional specialities guaranteed scheme, but with some
calls for it to be simplified, notably by discontinuing the possibility
of registering a name without reserving it;

a general welcome for simplifying marketing standards,
farm labelling, and the further development of optional quality
terms;

recognition of the need to address the problems
of those small-scale producers who found the existing schemes
too burdensome.

13.10 The Commission says that it then carried out
impact assessments of various options as regards the PDO and PGI
schemes on the one hand, and traditional specialities guaranteed
on the other. It says that these showed strong justification for
an EU level geographical indications scheme, albeit with
considerable scope for reducing complexity and facilitating enforcement
by merging the scheme for agricultural products and foodstuffs
with those for alcoholic drinks; that producer returns from PDOs
and PGIs are higher than for non-designated products, with PDO
labels commanding the largest premium; but that this added value
would diminish if the PDO and PGI instruments were to be merged.
In the case of traditional specialities guaranteed, it
says, although data was limited by the low uptake, the assessment
nevertheless showed the scheme had economic and social benefits,
and that there was support for its retention: however, it concluded
that there was little or no such benefit in the case of non-protected
names, as experience had shown that the function could be taken
up successfully by national or regional schemes. At the same time,
the Commission notes the limited extent to which either the PDO
or PGI schemes had attracted participation by small-scale producers,
despite their association with traditional methods and local marketing,
and it says that further study will be undertaken of this problem.

DOCUMENT (A)  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY
SCHEMES

13.11 This draft Regulation would repeal the two
legislative measures[55]
currently applicable in this area, and replace them by a single
regulatory structure, overseen by a single product quality committee.
In the case of PDOs and PGIs, it would maintain and reinforce
the scheme for agricultural products and foodstuffs, but, in view
of the relatively recent reforms of wines and spirits legislation,
the schemes for those products would remain distinct. More specifically,
the proposal would:

recognise the roles and responsibilities
for monitoring, promotion and communication of groups applying
for the registration of names;

reinforce and clarify the level of protection
for registered names and the common Union symbols;

shorten the procedure for registering names;

clarify the respective roles of Member States
and groups applying for registration as regards enforcing the
protection of registered names throughout the EU;

align the definitions of origin and geographical
indication more closely with international usage.

In addition, certain legal issues would be clarified,
and minimum common rules laid down on official controls to ensure
that a product follows the specification and that correct labelling
is applied.

13.12 In the case of traditional specialities guaranteed,
the proposal maintains the scheme for the reservation of names
guaranteed across the EU, but discontinues the option of registering
names without reservation, on the grounds that giving publicity,
but not protection, is best achieved at national level. In addition,
the new EU scheme would simplify the registration process and
align procedures with those for PDOs and PGIs, and target it in
certain respects; extend the criterion of tradition from 25 to
50 years, in order to reinforce the credibility of the scheme;
restrict it to prepared meals and processed products; and simplify
the definitions and procedural requirements. The Commission also
proposes that, since optional quality terms (such as "free
range") have much in common with the other quality schemes,
they should be brought into the current regulation, thus adapting
them to the legislative framework of the Treaty, but without amending
their content.

DOCUMENT (B)  MARKETING STANDARDS

13.13 The Commission says it is clear that marketing
standards can contribute to improving the economic conditions
for production, marketing and quality. It points out that market
management measures already contain a minimum requirement for
produce to be "sound, fair and marketable", and proposes
that these requirements should be extended to products not covered
by specific standards as a means of reassuring consumers. The
new framework would also introduce for all sectors a legal basis
for compulsory labelling of place of farming, allowing the Commission
 following impact assessments, and on a case by case basis
 to adopt delegated acts at the appropriate geographical
level. It says that the dairy sector will be one of the first
to be examined, but that, for those sectors (such as olive oil
and eggs) where mandatory indication of origin already exists,
this will be maintained.

13.14 The package also includes two Commission Communications
 published in the Official Journal[56]
on 16 December 2010  which provide respectively best practice
guidance for voluntary certification schemes and on the labelling
of foodstuffs using PROs and PGIs as ingredients.

The Government's view

13.15 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 11 January
2011, the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food at the Department
for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Mr Jim Paice) says
that the proposals in question
are justified in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,
as set out in Article 5 TFEU. In particular, he notes that, in
the case of document (a), the Commission takes the view that,
if the terms and names under the quality schemes enjoyed different
levels of protection in each Member State, this could mislead
consumers and impede intra-Union trade, and that the determination
of such rights, and the recognition of scheme symbols, across
the EU can only be achieved effectively and efficiently at EU
level. However, the Minister points out that the Commission has
recognised that the processing and analysis of applications can
be done more efficiently at national level, that it is unnecessary
at EU level to continue the option to register traditional specialities
guaranteed names which are not protected, and that controls and
enforcement should be primarily for national competent authorities,
with supervision at EU level. In the case of document (b), he
agrees with the Commission's view that, in order to guarantee
a uniform application of marketing standards, it is appropriate
that these are provided for at EU level, but with Member States
being responsible for controls.

13.16 As regards the policy implications, the Minister
says that the UK broadly welcomes the purpose of this package,
and will play an active part in the detailed discussions which
will now follow. He adds that the Government is now studying the
details of the two legislative proposals, including whether the
provisions related to powers of the Commission to adopt delegated
and implementing acts are appropriate. He says that UK impact
assessments will be required if domestic legislation is needed,
and, in the meantime, comments that the Government is strongly
opposed to extending the criterion for traditional specialities
guaranteed from 25 to 50 years, and restricting eligibility to
processed foods. He also points out that, although none of the
EU schemes has budgetary implications, the Commission is proposing
that it should take a more active role in order to protect the
names of the quality schemes and the Union symbols, particularly
in third countries, and that consequently the financial statement
to document (a) shows the additional budgetary resources needed
(though the sums involved are relatively small, rising from 110,000
in 2012 to 150,000 for 2013-15, subject to the availability
of appropriations in 2014 and 2015).

Conclusion

13.17 These two proposals seek to give legislative
effect to many of the changes which the Commission suggested in
the Green Paper it produced in 2008, and, as such, they largely
reflect the views it received in response to that document, and
in terms which are broadly acceptable to the UK. Consequently,
although the proposals deal with an area of some interest to consumers,
they do not appear to us to raise any new issues, or ones sufficiently
significant to require further consideration by the House. We
are therefore clearing them.